Why do Byzantines put the Eucharistic bread in the wine?

[TheAdvocate]

Probably it is a very practical solution in administering both the Body and Blood of our Common Lord. In any Divine Liturgy there is the same amount of wine used. Since the bread and wine are consecrated separately therefore it is the discretion of the priest to put whatever consecrated bread into the chalice that has the consecrated wine. This ability of the Eastern Orthodox when celebrating their Holy Communion makes it very easy to use the same amount of wine in every Liturgy. For instance in the Catholic Church can you imagine what would happen if the Catholic Church decided to give out the consecrated wine as well. You would have to consecrate with a lot more chalices. In one Church which had celebrated Midnight Mass the priest needed 5 chalices to administer to those who had come to the Christmas Mass. Any Catholic parish that had over 1000 people would have too many chalices to try to administer to the faithful. That other parish that needed 5 chalices were for only 300 communicants. I believe the Holy Spirit just guided the Orthodox Church to a more practical solution in administering Holy Communion with both species.

Not to mention that at the Last Supper Jesus said “drink of it all of you.” But ensuring the the consecrated bread and wine are together, it also ensures that the communicants receive both.

 

[chimo]

Not to mention that at the Last Supper Jesus said “drink of it all of you.” But ensuring the the consecrated bread and wine are together, it also ensures that the communicants receive both.

Yes you are correct. By the way do you support a more use of the consecrated wine in the Catholic Mass? Do you wish the Catholic Church to offer this to their faithful at every Mass?

 

[TheAdvocate]

Yes you are correct. By the way do you support a more use of the consecrated wine in the Catholic Mass? Do you wish the Catholic Church to offer this to their faithful at every Mass?

Absolutely.

 

[chimo]

Absolutely.

Are there more Catholics like you that wish to receive the Lord under both species? Just curious how would the Church of Rome enact this throughout the Catholic Church? Will a pronouncement from the Pope is all that is needed or do the Churches have this choice anyway to give out both species? Just wondering what prevents so many Churches to do this. By the way thanks again for your reply you had given earlier.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Are there more Catholics like you that wish to receive the Lord under both species? Just curious how would the Church of Rome enact this throughout the Catholic Church? Will a pronouncement from the Pope is all that is needed or do the Churches have this choice anyway to give out both species? Just wondering what prevents so many Churches to do this. By the way thanks again for your reply you had given earlier.

Both species has been the norm for decades in the Latin Church and always the practice in the Eastern. Latin priests can opt to use one but it’s rarely done, except in the Extraordinary Form Latin Mass.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Both species has been the norm for decades in the Latin Church and always the practice in the Eastern. Latin priests can opt to use one but it’s rarely done, except in the Extraordinary Form Latin Mass.

SyroMalankara is correct.

There is nothing preventing someone receiving under both species, in fact, it is encouraged (though not enough, in my mind), but a lot of people just skip it. And because communion in the hand is also the norm, you forget communion by intinction.

 

[Vico]

SyroMalankara is correct.

There is nothing preventing someone receiving under both species, in fact, it is encouraged (though not enough, in my mind), but a lot of people just skip it. And because communion in the hand is also the norm, you forget communion by intinction.

I think it is interesting that communion by intinction is not encountered often, especially given the 1970 Sacramentali Communione. 6.

1. For a fitting administration of Communion under both kinds care must be taken that all is done with proper reverence and that the rite outlined in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal nos. 244-251 is observed.
2. The character of the particular liturgical assembly as well as the age, circumstances, and preparation of the communicants should be considered, then the choice should be made of the way of giving Communion that insures its being done with dignity, devotion, propriety, and the avoidance of the danger of irreverence.
3. Among the ways of communicating prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, receiving from the chalice itself ranks first. Even so, it is to be chosen only when everything can be carried out in fitting order and with no danger of irreverence toward the blood of Christ.
4. When they are available, other priests or deacons or even acolytes should be chosen to present the chalice. The method of communicating in which the communicants pass the chalice to one another or go directly to the chalice to take Christ’s blood must be regarded as unacceptable.
5. Whenever none of the ministers already mentioned is available, if the communicants are few and are to receive Communion under both kinds by drinking directly from the chalice, the priest himself distributes Communion, first under the form of bread, then under the form of wine.
6. Otherwise the preference should be for the rite of Communion under both kinds by intinction: it is more likely to obviate the practical difficulties and to ensure the reverence due the Sacrament more effectively. Intinction makes access to Communion under both kinds easier and safer for the faithful of all ages and conditions; at the same time it preserves the truth present in the more complete sign.

• See more at: adoremus.org/0903Intinction.html#sthash.v5sppRYe.dpuf

 

[MorEphrem]

Not to mention that at the Last Supper Jesus said “drink of it all of you.” But ensuring the the consecrated bread and wine are together, it also ensures that the communicants receive both.

If one has ever been to a Byzantine liturgy one would notice that while the faithful receive by intinction the deacons and priest drink from the chalice itself.

 

[chimo]

If one has ever been to a Byzantine liturgy one would notice that while the faithful receive by intinction the deacons and priest drink from the chalice itself.

Yes I noticed that in my parish as well. I wonder though why do they give out the consecrated bread separately to the priests, deacons and subdeacons because it is very easy for some crumb to fall away. This is no disrespect to receiving The Lord Jesus but I think a more cautious manner would be better.

 

[Aramis]

I think it is interesting that communion by intinction is not encountered often, especially given the 1970 Sacramentali Communione.

6.
​

One very simple reason: Intinction may only be done by deacons, priests, and bishops.
The “stabilization period” after VII until a fairly common praxis evolved was roughly from 1970 to 1980; during that period, priests were lacking (especially given the issues with vocations in the 1960’s), deacons were almost all transitional, and pretty sparse, and parishes were expecting communion time to be no longer than before; Given that the change from the use of the communion rail increases time taken, this meant needing more ministers of holy communion, at a time when vocations were down.

By the time most places got their first class of permanent deacons, the Roman Church had settled pretty firmly into a pattern of EMHC’s - often up to 1 per 25 communicants - which means intinction is disallowed.

If the permanent diaconate had predated the new missal of 1969, we’d probably see far more deacons and far more intinction in the Roman OF.​